Traer Creek-EXWMT LLC v. Eagle County Board of Equalization
2017 COA 16
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Traer Creek-EXWMT LLC (Traer) is the long-term lessee of Tract B (commercial parcel) and has a recorded contractual obligation to pay property taxes, though the fee owner has historically paid and been reimbursed by Traer.
- For tax year 2015 the Eagle County Assessor mailed a valuation notice to the fee owner (not Traer).
- Traer — not the owner — initiated the statutory protest/adjustment process challenging the 2015 valuation; the assessor declined adjustment and the county Board of Equalization upheld the valuation.
- Traer appealed the Board’s decision to district court under § 39-8-108; the Board moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing a mere lessee cannot challenge a fee valuation.
- The district court granted the Board’s motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statutory scheme confines protest and appeal rights to the fee owner who receives the valuation notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Traer has statutory standing to object to and protest the assessor’s valuation of Tract B | Traer argued its leasehold interest (and contractual obligation to pay taxes) gives it standing to protest the valuation | Board argued the statutory notice-and-protest scheme grants standing only to the fee owner who receives the valuation notice | Held: No statutory standing — statutes restrict protest/appeal rights to the fee owner who receives the notice |
| Whether Traer can invoke common-law standing or agency to proceed despite statutory limits | Traer argued it pays the taxes and had agency authority from owner to challenge valuation | Board argued statutory limits control and common-law standing cannot override an explicit statutory class of entitled parties | Held: No common-law or agency-based expansion of standing — statute controls and precludes Traer’s suit |
| Whether district court’s factual findings about leased space and tax liability affect standing | Traer argued the court adopted Board’s factual assertions incorrectly | Board and court maintained those factual particulars are irrelevant to the statutory standing question | Held: Any factual errors were harmless because those facts do not change the statutory standing analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenney v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 856 P.2d 89 (Colo. App. 1993) (statutory use of "petitioner" construed as meaning the taxpayer/owner)
- Berry Props. v. City of Commerce City, 667 P.2d 247 (Colo. App. 1983) (when statute designates who may sue, courts may not expand that class)
- Wyler/Pebble Creek Ranch v. Colo. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 883 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1994) (protest/adjustment procedures and abatement/refund procedures are distinct)
- Hughey v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 921 P.2d 76 (Colo. App. 1996) (addressing standing in abatement/refund context)